Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmington ZBA deadlocks on Apex Land Solutions variance; rehearing set for April
Summary
The Zoning Board reheard a request from Apex Land Solutions to reduce the AR-zone 3-acre minimum and frontage requirements to allow a subdivision of up to 80 lots. Board members split on whether the application meets variance standards; the final grant failed on a 2-2 vote and the matter was continued to April for another hearing.
The Farmington Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 5 reheard a variance request from Apex Land Solutions for Map 14, Lot 22, seeking relief from Agricultural-Residential standards that require a 3-acre minimum lot size and 250 feet of frontage to allow a denser subdivision and commercial frontage on Route 11. The board deadlocked on key findings and continued the case to its April meeting.
Ryan Heath, a partner and agent for Apex Land Solutions, told the board the parcel is roughly 139 acres split between Commercial Business frontage on Route 11 and Agricultural-Residential land behind it. He said the developer’s concept would use municipal water and private septic to serve as many as 80 smaller lots, with “approximately 29.5 acres of land to be placed in permanent conservation” and roughly 22.5 acres reserved for commercial parcels on Route 11. Heath told the board that strict AR zone requirements make development uneconomic on the backland: with 200–250 feet of frontage per lot, he said, “it would require approx. 3,800 ft. of infrastructure” and at about $315 per linear foot would add nearly $1 million in road costs before other soft costs.
Heath framed the request as consistent with Farmington’s 2021 Master Plan goals to encourage varied housing options and use municipal services to enable smaller lots. He asked the board to treat the application as relief for the zone’s lot-size and frontage limits rather than a change of land use. “The proposal in front of them is a maximum of 80 smaller lots all to be served by municipal water and private septic systems,” he said.
Several abutters and neighbors urged caution. Ron Boisvert, who abuts the parcel, argued the property is not unique among nearby woodlots and raised legal and technical hurdles to access, saying the lot lacks clear fee-simple road frontage and that easements cannot substitute for the 275-foot fee-simple roadway the ordinance anticipates. Boisvert also flagged groundwater protection and school-cost estimates, and cited a 2025 average-daily-traffic figure of 15,961 vehicles on Route 11 when discussing turning and stacking needs.
Esther Kennedy, owner of NH Paddle Sports and an abutter, said she had not received updated engineering materials and urged the board to postpone until traffic studies, wetland delineations and test-pit/bore data were released. Charlie King, another abutter, recommended exploring an open-space cluster subdivision or other density mechanisms rather than granting the broad relief sought, and pointed to steep slopes and wetlands that could disqualify some lots during engineering review.
Chairman John Scruton read a letter from Manny Krasner, a drafter of Farmington’s original zoning ordinance, describing the 3-acre AR zone’s intent to preserve rural character and concentrate density closer to town services; Krasner’s letter was entered into the record as historical context for the zone’s purpose.
After public comment the board deliberated and voted sequentially on the variance criteria in the application packet. The votes were recorded as follows: the finding that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest passed 3–1 (Aylard, Morgan, Horgan in favor; Scruton opposed); that the spirit of the ordinance was observed resulted in a 2–2 tie (Horgan, Morgan in favor; Scruton, Aylard opposed); that substantial justice would be done passed unanimously 4–0; that surrounding property values would not be diminished passed 3–1 (Scruton, Horgan, Morgan in favor; Aylard opposed); and that literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship failed on a 2–2 tie (Morgan, Horgan in favor; Scruton, Aylard opposed). Because not all required findings were affirmative, the final motion to grant the variance failed on a 2–2 tie (Horgan, Morgan in favor; Scruton, Aylard opposed). The board voted to continue the rehearing to the April ZBA meeting to obtain additional materials and to allow further deliberation.
The board and several abutters repeatedly noted that engineering and planning matters — including wetland delineation, full soils/test-pit reports, stormwater/stormwater detention design, and any Department of Transportation approvals for Route 11 access or changes to the Rail Trail crossing — remain unresolved and would be addressed at Planning Board review or in subsequent technical submittals. Scruton told attendees the Town Planner had provided additional technical materials to staff after the agenda packet distribution and those materials should be available to the public ahead of the continued hearing.
Next procedural step: the ZBA continued the rehearing to its April meeting so the applicant can supply or confirm engineering, traffic and state-permit information and so board members absent from earlier hearings can review the full record before a decisive vote.
